Petaja v. Aurora Iron Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1896 |
| Citation | 66 N.W. 951,106 Mich. 463 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PETAJA v. AURORA IRON MIN. CO. |
On rehearing. Affirmed.
For former opinion, see 64 N.W. 335.
Julius J. Patek (Clark & Pearl and Cahill & Ostrander, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles E. Miller, for appellee.
The substance of the question which we are disposed to consider upon the rehearing of this cause is whether the fact that mining operations have proceeded beyond a given point in the stope, and the stope has been "timbered up" to that point, changes the portion so timbered so that it is to be treated as a place to work within the decisions requiring a master to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place to work. The alleged inaccuracy of the court, in stating that the testimony showed that the miners had not put the newly-opened space in condition for the timber men, has no bearing upon this question; and we are satisfied with the proposition enunciated,-that the failure of the miners or boss to notify the timber men that the place was in readiness was the negligence of fellow servants of the plaintiff. But it was urged by counsel that in the discussion of the question the court neglected to consider the fact that, at the time of the accident, the last timbers set did not support the roof of the mine, the lagging being some distance below the roof, by reason of the caving or dropping of ore from the roof, above the lagging until it left a space between the lagging and the roof of the mine, and that, as this increased the area of roof unsupported, it caused the ore to fall and injure the plaintiff. It is apparent that if we are to adhere to the holding that miners and trammers are fellow servants, and that the shift boss, like the foreman of a section gang, is not an exception, there can be no theory upon which the plaintiff can recover, except that, immediately the room was in readiness for timbers, it was the duty of the master to see that they were properly set and maintained. And it is obvious that this claim must be, as it is, planted upon the rule that, in appropriate cases, requires the master to provide a safe place. The operation of mining, in this and similar mines, is to sink a shaft, and from the shaft start a drift, from which stopes or rooms are excavated across the vein, from the lower to the upper or hanging wall. It is accomplished by caving down and removing the ore. It is manifest that this cannot proceed unless the roof is supported behind the miners, and this is done by putting up timbers to support the roof until the ore shall be excavated beyond. It is said that, when the room has been excavated sufficiently large, it is the practice to cave the room down into the mining sets, and place more timbers on top of the first. Now, if this room can properly be said to be a place furnished to the servants in which to carry on the master's business, and which he must, at his peril, keep in reasonably safe condition, as a factory or warehouse, then the case should have gone to the jury; but, if it is not such a place, then it falls within that other rule, that the duty of the master is performed by using reasonable care, or furnishing suitable material, and employing capable and efficient men to do the work. In view of the cases of Schroeder v. Railway Co. (Mich.) 61 N.W. 663, and Beesley v. F. W. Wheeler & CO., Id. 658, cited in the former opinion, there is no doubt that a master must furnish a reasonably safe place for a servant to work, if a structure is required for the carrying on of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial